April 8, 2009

I was listening to the beginning of the Rush Limbaugh show as I was cooking lunch this morning, and he was going on about the U.S. crew that was taken hostage by pirates off the cost of Somalia today. He'd slotted the story into his Obama-doesn't-know-what-to-do template and was riffing away about Obama's indecision and what he must be fretting about and how he'd probably want to apologize to the pirates and so forth. The big show was steaming along. (I thought a good ending would be: hostage crisis... it's Jimmy Carter all over again.)

And then he was slipped the news that the U.S. crew had taken their ship back, defeated the pirates. And Rush should have turned that big show around instantly. It should have been: Yay, America! Americans don't lie back and wait to be rescued. We're ready to fight. We're self-reliant. The government isn't the answer to everything. There were lots of great alternate Rush Limbaugh templates to mobilize right then. This is why we need to have our own guns. This is why the bitching about Bush after Katrina was all wrong. Etc. etc.

But Rush couldn't turn that big show — that big container ship — around. He couldn't let go of Obama doesn't know what to do, and I felt a little sad about my radio hero.

Come on, Rush, be agile! I thought you knew how to do that. Eh, enough about Rush, I want to celebrate the American crew. Go America. And to the rest of the world: Look on and admire. Learn something.

Don't be ridiculous. Now under the benevolent rule of Obama, I am sure he is being treated as a welcome guest aboard the ship.

My God, you are a bunch of complete morons aren't you? You do realize that NATO, and other international organizations have been patrolling these waters for months now. That there are international laws covering piracy and that these men will be dealt with according to well established laws and treaties.

There is no need for ridiculous snark about how this would have never happened under the tough guy Bush administration, because it was happening regularly, and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. The only reason an American flagged ship wasn't nabbed earlier, as was pointed out, is their are damn few of them left.

Only the right wing nuts here could somehow meld Obama, a teleprompter, constitutional rights, and what one calls a "feckless" congress into a story about Rush Limbaugh not having the guts to back off a ridiculous storyline and the good news relating to a U.S. crew overwhelming pirates.

Reading these comments is like watching a Saturday morning children's cartoon show, just not as intellectual.

Oh, Althouse. Rush was never your hero! You're just fair enough to admit that the hyperbole over him by those who have never actually listened or read a transcript makes them too much fun to tweak to pass up the chance.

...there are international laws covering piracy and that these men will be dealt with according to well established laws and treaties.

One pirate is in custody and will be dealt with according to laws and treaties. The rest are "in the water."

it was happening regularly, and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. The only reason an American flagged ship wasn't nabbed earlier, as was pointed out, is their are damn few of them left.

And yet... we couldn't do a thing about it *because* they weren't our ships. This was our ship. And it well could have happened under Bush. How silly to say it wouldn't. But the same thing would likely have happened. One of two things and we'll never know which it was...

The crew fought back and turned the pirates into fish food (except for one) OR some SEALS got a night of practice on the quiet.

Rush has two-week spells when he's in morality mode. He no longer deprecates himself with a larger-than-life persona, but talks seriously about complete crap, the nations founding fathers, each individual in different from every other, and on and on.

Occasionally a young person will call in to be instructed, and that call goes 45 minutes.

Come back in two weeks, is my usual solution. Actually I leave it on but turn down the volume a little and spend more concentration calories on work.

Just because Rush is a walking human shitstain doesn't mean he's perfect, Anne.

Poor Rush, sometimes he just needs someone to pet his spittle-flecked jowls in that lonely mansion of his, between viagra-fueled sex tours in the dominican republic. He needs love... maybe he'll find it among his listeners. If only his blog was open to comments.

Limbaugh and his ilk's entire raison d'etre is to ankle bite Obama every day of his presidency. Of COURSE he's not going to let go of his Obama-doesn't-know-what-to-do rant. How is this surprising? My god. Limbaugh fans are so dense.

Synova - "You're just fair enough to admit that the hyperbole over him by those who have never actually listened or read a transcript makes them too much fun to tweak to pass up the chance."

I've listened to Rush on a number of occasions and when he sticks to "entertainment" he's okay, but when he gets into insane personal attacks that are downright disgusting and less than American, I don't understand his appeal.

As an example, about a week ago he said something I found incredibly repugnant, especially considering his comment was about the President of the United States.

Whether you support Obama not not, in this clip, Rush Limbaugh was basically implying that our President is infected with AIDS:

Limbaugh warned that if the British Prime Minister keeps "slobbering" over President Barack Obama, he'll "come down with anal poisoning and may die from it."

Anal poisoning? Other than AIDS, what else could he possibly be referring to that would result in death?

Well -- it is still murky who's in control of what. I heard on the 3 pm news that the Captain is in another small boat with 4 pirates, one of whom was released by the American crew to try to ransom the Captain.

The ship, FWIW, is full of food and relief supplies for east Africa.

I guess the "international law" against arms on freighters was to keep some counties from disguising their navies as "civilians?" You know, something like asymetrical battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I for one think arming the ships in the area of pirates is a sensible idea.

The pirates come armed. Sort of like crooks and nuts in a gun free zone. No fear.

It's extremely heartening to read that at least partial control of the ship was been re-gained (and what a needle to prick that gasbag Limbaugh that fact is); I'll be much happier when all the Americans are safe and the pirates are meeting Mr. Jones.

Ahh c'mon Jeremy. Obama has gone from pillar to post in Europe wearing sack cloth and ashes for what is being presented as the foulist country on earth -- the USA.

Excuuuuuuse me.

We live in a country that has done more good for all religions, races, and peoples than any other country in history.

There are some people who are emotionally compromised to where they feel like they have to apologize for breathing. I have worked with some of these people professionally. There is something WRONG with them.

If you have something to apologize for, something to make right, it better be a specific thing instead of some mealy mouthed vague bending of the knee to every one who comes along in some kind of pathetic posturing.

Obama's "pro-American" lines which he utters infrequently are hollow. He hasn't got a clue. (And apparently a really deficient history background.)

Seriously Professor, the pressure on Rush to perform 15 hours a week and still find a chink in Obama's image that will be a story line to carry the show, makes it harder for Rush to think on his feet than it would be for you or me. You have recently had 5 years of daily Blog duels to sharpen up your excellent instincts and go for the jugular of the opponent's argument. But I also remember how much easier it was to think while sitting and listening than it was to think while standing and performing. The best closing arguments seemed to come from a co-counsel who could just sit there at the table and listen to the evidence instead of having to present it.

JAL said..."Ahh c'mon Jeremy. Obama has gone from pillar to post in Europe wearing sack cloth and ashes for what is being presented as the foulist country on earth -- the USA."

Well, thanks for the info, Rush...uh, sorry, JAL.

I've yet to read a single report (other than FOX) that says anything of the kind.

We've spent eight years telling the rest of the world to suck off so it's about time we began to act like leaders of the free world.

I don't remember hearing this when Nixon went to China or Reagan (the God of all Republican Gods) entertained Gorbachev. (And remember, G.W. has held hands with the Saudis (remember how many of the terrorists were Saudis on 9/11?), Pakistan, Syria, Turkey and others so what exactly is your point?)

The constant drumbeat (here anyway) criticizing literally everything Obama says or does is contrary to what a majority of American and the rest of the world appear to think.

My God, you are a bunch of complete morons aren't you? You do realize that NATO, and other international organizations have been patrolling these waters for months now.

They have done nothing. Zero, zip, nada. There is a town on the coast of Somalia that is a haven for the pirates, their leaders, and their negotiators- the guys who try to get illegal ransom. No one had the balls to shell this town into oblivion and send a message- piracy is over and done with or else.

That there are international laws covering piracy and that these men will be dealt with according to well established laws and treaties.

Please tell us the last time pirates were captured and tried under the well established laws and treaties? Please tell us what eventually happened to them? The only countries that effectively deal with pirates are the ones you libpukes keep complaining about; you know human rights violations and all that.

There is only one way to deal with this. Get them before they get you.

You should listen to Rush more often and you might understand the humor.

Anal poisoning can occur when person A sticks his nose far up person B's ass. Could it be fatal? The dose makes the poison, eh? You may also know it as "brownnosing", but I'm not sure that's polite in the current circumstances.

First the Barbary pirates, now the Somali pirates: such rich gifts to America from the muzzie world. Other than spreading dread wherever they settle what is the muzzie contribution to America that Zero waxes on about?

International law *requires* that merchant ships and crews be entirely unarmed.

Can you provide the provision of international law or treaty that requires that merchant ships and crews be entirely unarmed (and not just some link to an unsupported assertion on a blog). Just because shipping companies do not want to go to the expense, risk the liability, or all the other potential problems of arming their crews doesn't mean that it is unlawful.

Of course, as Camilia Paglia tells us, since conservatives base their arguments on facts, I am sure you are correct.

...there are international laws covering piracy and that these men will be dealt with according to well established laws and treaties.

actually no.

There used to be fairly uniform laws dealing with piracy. "Hanging untl dead" was found in most of them.

Then we (the world) got civilized and updated our penal codes and eliminated those outdated ections that talked about piracy and hanging.

Now we ave naval patrols, but none of the Navies actually want to capture a pirate because they may seek asylum. And you can't shoot them in their boats and you can't shoot them once they have hostages, so you only can shoot them while they board.

But guess What? If an armed ship is in sight when they pull up to a container vessel,they pull out the fishing poles :)

No one had the balls to shell this town into oblivion and send a message- piracy is over and done with or else.

You ever consider that there are entirely innocent people also living in that town. I bet we could eliminate the mafia if we nuked Sicily and Little Italy in New York, too. That would teach those damn Dagos a lesson about organized crime. And while we're at it, why not just wipe Medallion, Columbia off the face of the Earth too.

Was the crew composed of Americans? The fact that a ship is registered in the United States doesn't mean that the captain or any of the crew are US citizens. The ship's owner is a foreign corporation (Maersk).

One foes back to naval history. Arming the men and the ships gave rise to mutiny. If there were arms on board, they were under lock and key and entrusted to an officer whose loyalty was with the captain.

The second, more modern reason has to do with neutrality. Merchant ships are just that- private cargo carriers. Arming them could be construed as making them part of the armed forces of what ever countires flag they are flying or worse, private armed forces.

Some of you should read history instead of useless UN mandates and other frivolous nonsense.

They weren't calling you that for criticizing Bush, they were calling you that for seeming to care more about the welfare of terrorists than the welfare of Americans.

Bullshit. And if they were, then they are complete morons who are incapable of forming or analyzing simple arguments because I never once based any of my criticisms of the Bush administration on the welfare of the terrorists.

1. "International Law" does not forbid arming merchant mariners. The problem is that cargo ships can't stay in international waters -- they must enter ports to load and unload cargo. The laws of those ports make carrying firearms difficult or even impossible.

2. Merchant mariners are sailors, not high-speed low drag tactical operators. (Some of us are pretty low-speed and high-drag, if you get my drift.) We are neither equipped, nor trained nor inclined to get into shootouts with pirates.

3. Pirates, OTOH are typically well-trained, well-armed and politically well-connected ashore. In fact, they typically use those evil "assault weapons" that would cause us to grow warts, glow in the dark or go insane if we looked at them.

4. This incident happened well away from any naval presence. In the past several months pirates have exhibited both the organization and the logistical support to operate hundreds of miles from either their own ports or the naval patrols intended to stop them.

Was the crew composed of Americans? The fact that a ship is registered in the United States doesn't mean that the captain or any of the crew are US citizens. The ship's owner is a foreign corporation (Maersk).

From what I read, the ship was owned by an American subsidiary of Maersk (which is Dutch) and the crew was primarily American. The ship routinely carried cargo for the U.S. military (although not on this voyage).

bagoh20 said..."I guess that's all we need to know then, thanks. Not much use in commenting anymore. Now I know what I should think. Obama is cool."

You don't have to think Obama is "cool." And comments are obviously welcome or there would be no blog.

It's just that I find the incessant bitching and whining about everything he does to be rather petty, especially considering he's only been President for about 75 days and whether YOU personally like the man, he does carry a very high approval ratings among a majority of Americans.

Sofa King said..."They weren't calling you that for criticizing Bush, they were calling you that for seeming to care more about the welfare of terrorists than the welfare of Americans."

Now that is not true.

I can remember reading comments on any number of occasions when anyone who ranted against Bush or the invasion of Iraq or many of the policies under Bush was roundly targeted as being unAmerican, unpatriotic or treasonous.

And I have no idea what the comment relating to "seeming to care more about the welfare of terrorists than the welfare of Americans" even means. Are you referring to torture?

Because if you are; Bush and Cheney said they never authorized any such actions. (uh-huh)

So, Rush wants to see Americans in a crisis like the hostages in Iran, so he can attack Obama's response to it? My, how patriotic.

I saw that other right-wing propagandist, Michelle Malkin, was up to the same thing on her blog, and sounded downright disappointed when the crew took back the ship.

Obama isn't off to a great start, IMO, but it's pretty laughable when people who never opened their eyes to the disaster that was the Bush administration are being so over the top in their condemnations of Obama. Don't they realize that most of the things Obama's dealing with are part of the extreme mess Bush passed to him?

So in other words to know how Bambi would handle the piracy of US ships and crews on the high seas we have to let the crews be captured and the crews have to do nothing to free themselves. Then just what do you think Bambi will do. That is IMNSHO the point that Rush was getting to. These pirates have been operating for a good while in this area and the US ships have been lucky not to be attacked. Now they have been. What is Bambi going to do to solve the problem. Is he going to attack the pirates (see Barbary Coast and the US Marines about 200+ years ago for a precedent)? Is he going to join them and sing Kumbaye and the pirates will be so dazzled by his Oneness they will just bow down to him and free the crews? It is a problem that needs to be dealt with in that area and if it is not dealt with now then it will just drag on until the situation gets really bad. Rush is saying Bambi needs to at least start formulating a policy to solve the situation.

You ever consider that there are entirely innocent people also living in that town.

Living off the piracy, even if they never go on a boat.

So I suppose piracy is for the greater good. If any pirates are caught we might consider the harm, the innocent children who will go hungry, if those pirates are not allowed to continue their vocation.

Pew Research Poll: The widest GAP between the approval rating for Obama via Democrats versus Republicans...ever.

Most Republicans completely despise a President from the Democratic Party from DAY ONE. There's no wait-and-see or "give him a chance to prove himself" for them. If you listen to some of the more under the radar right-wing radio shows, the hosts and callers are debating whether Obama is a Nazi, a commie, or the anti-Christ. And, of course, he's not even really the President because he supposedly wasn't born in the USA....

Democrats are telling pollsters that they approve of and are happy with Obama because they voted for the guy and don't want to admit that he had NO qualifications for President and they're hoping that clapping for Tinkerbell will actually work.

Most Republicans completely despise a President from the Democratic Party from DAY ONE. There's no wait-and-see or "give him a chance to prove himself" for them. If you listen to some of the more under the radar right-wing radio shows, the hosts and callers are debating whether Obama is a Nazi, a commie, or the anti-Christ. And, of course, he's not even really the President because he supposedly wasn't born in the USA....

So? The opposite was true in 2000. That's politics. Is there a problem? If you personally can't handle it, maybe you should try a different website.

We're liberals this unhinged after just a few days into Bush's first term? I remember Bush with a 90% approval rating and Democrats holding hands and singing with Republicans on the Capitol steps. I wonder how it would have gone over if Democrats told Bush to fuck off, vote no on whatever he wanted, and asked for a birth certificate.

Six months to a year from now, start your engines, but right now this is nothing more than partisan whining via the people who lost.

Talk about whining. If criticism of Obama's actions or lack thereof to date bother you, that's fine. That's your prerogative. But since you keep coming back to hear it, you really have little basis to complain.

garage mahal said... We're liberals this unhinged after just a few days into Bush's first term? I remember Bush with a 90% approval rating and Democrats holding hands and singing with Republicans on the Capitol steps.

My memory must be fading. I thought those were the days of "Selected not Elected". and "Stolen Election" and "BUSH IS NOT MY PRESIDENT"

I remember Bush with a 90% approval rating and Democrats holding hands and singing with Republicans on the Capitol steps.

Garage... that was on September 12th.

Not January 20th.

And Jeremy, really... what does my approval or disapproval of George Bush have to do with anything? I certainly disapproved of some of what he did, and approved of other things. The only thing that I withheld an opinion on for a time was invading Iraq, which I eventually decided was most certainly the right thing to do.

Are you withholding your approval of Barack Obama's economic policy?

Or are you just asking everyone else to withhold disapproval?

I wasn't wildly happy about Bush. Given a reasonable, competent, alternative I'd have happily voted for that person. But the choice was Bush or Kerry.

The choice between McCain and Obama was similar. McCain was far from my first choice. He wasn't even my fourth choice. But the other choice was Obama, who clearly had no executive experience at all, redistributionist tendencies, and a tin ear for foreign sensibility that quite frankly was appalling.

Do you refer to Blacks as niggers, Mexicans as wetbacks, Puerto Ricans as spics, and Jews as kikes? I guess your liberalism bullshit and political correctness horseshit is not all it is cracked up to be. When do you break out your hoods and start rounding up people for the camps and the lynchings?

Sofa King said..."Talk about whining. If criticism of Obama's actions or lack thereof to date bother you, that's fine. That's your prerogative. But since you keep coming back to hear it, you really have little basis to complain."

This is an open forum, Sofa.

Would you rather it be made up of nothing but those who agree with you? (Probably, but that's another matter.)

I've asked why people are so critical of Obama after a mere 75 days or so, and how they can possibly know what he or his policies will turn out.

All I get in response is silly Bambi slurs or comments like this insanity from Fen: "Worst. President. Ever."

75 days into the administration and this fool thinks he already knows what will happen over the next 4-8 years.

eter V. Bella said..."What *exactly* am I supposed to wait for? The day that Obama goes to the top of the mountain with Reid on one side and Pelosi on the other; a bright light shines down and a voice declares: This is my only son. Worship him."

This is exactly what I mean: No substance, just infantile personal attacks that have no relevance to Obama's performance or the fact that a majority of America approves of what he's doing.

I find it strange that so many here have the opposite opinion of so many of their fellow citizens.

"Can you imagine a new CEO of a major corporation being taking this kind insane criticism after this period of time...especially considering what Obama is facing?"

If in that short time he decided to put the company into the biggest debt in history from which it could never foreseeable recover and use it to reward the least productive employees at the expense of the most productive and proceed to insult our customers and support our competitors and talk up their product, while dissing his own company, this stockholder would call for his head immediately. I am a CEO and I can't imagine keeping my job after that.

First of all when has a CEO of any company ever "decided to put the company into the biggest debt in history from which it could never foreseeable recover" unless it was part of an illegal maneuver to bilk investors?

And again, how do YOU know what Obama is doing will result in a situation where we "could never foreseeable recover"??

Based on what? Your crystal ball? Are you communicating with Edgar Cayce?

And what do you base your charge that his policies will "reward the least productive employees at the expense of the most productive"??

Anything Obama does wouldn't eeven remotely compare to this: In 1980, CEOs at Fortune 500 firms were paid 42 times the average worker’s salary. By 2007, they were being paid on average 364 times as much.

And...during the most recent expansion from 2002 to 2006, the top 1 percent of taxpayers took three-fourths of all income growth

None of your drivel is based on facts, it's all just a regurgitation of the same bullshit we hear every day from Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and others...none of whom have a shred of economic experience.

Freder Frederson said..."You do realize that NATO, and other international organizations have been patrolling these waters for months now."

An exactly how many pirates have they killed? How many pirate motherships sunk (I think the Indians rammed one - B.Z. to them)? NATO is playing by tranzi rules and accomplishing very little, but now the US has real skin in the game - if there was a real president, it would be casus belli to go after the pirates, their haunts and their support network. Obambi, I am sure, will send a stiff note.

Based on what? Your crystal ball? Are you communicating with his employees?

None of your drivel is based on facts, it's all just a regurgitation of the same bullshit we hear every day from Jeremy, Luckyoldson, Alpha and others...none of whom have a shred of economic experience.

His tenure with the Rangers was quite strategic: He invested $500,000...and walked away with massive stock profit.

Maybe if you were to actually read a biography or do some research?

G.W. : In April 1989, the Rangers' owner, oil tycoon Eddie Chiles, sold the team to an investment group that included the future President of the United States George W. Bush. Bush would serve as the Rangers' managing general partner until he was elected Governor of Texas in 1994. Chiles was a friend of the Bush family. After hearing Chiles planned to sell the team, Bush headed a group of investors that bought the team. He secured his share of the Rangers, less than 2-percent equity, by borrowing $500,000.

During his tenure, the Rangers and the City of Arlington decided to construct a new stadium to replace the aging Arlington Stadium. Ground was broken on October 30, 1991 on what would become The Ballpark in Arlington (now named Rangers Ballpark in Arlington). Stadium construction was financed by Arlington residents, through a sales tax increase. The city also authorized the seizure of land, through eminent domain.

In 1998, Tom Hicks bought the team. Bush received nearly $15 million from the sale, mostly due to a generous 10-percent bonus of the purchases price, which was $250 million.

You think most people invest $500,000 and walk with $15,000,000 5 years later?

You just say stuff huh, and kinda hope nobody notices. Just like Obama. The man has done nothing else his entire life but say stuff and hope it flies. Good choice there Obama voters. Even if he ends up with a successful presidency (unlikely) those who voted for him can claim no credit. If you hire a candidate with no job experience and he does not fail, isn't that just dumb luck anyway. Gambling with the greatest nation that ever existed is a tragedy. I hope we get lucky, that's all we got right now.

Lawgiver, you need to quit sweet talking to Jeremy. He's easily enamored by fancy talking. Or is there another reason he supports Obama, I can't think of any others there could be. Snappy dresser, maybe that's it.

First of all when has a CEO of any company ever "decided to put the company into the biggest debt in history from which it could never foreseeable recover" unless it was part of an illegal maneuver to bilk investors?

Barack Hussein Obama

You do the math. Or can't you?

There is NO WAY he (we) can recoup the trillions [trillionSSSSS] of dollars (from our grandchildren's sweat) he is throwing into government help programs. He is buying jobs and, he hopes, votes, but not building any capital to generate real money which would provide a tax base in the future.

Anything Obama does wouldn't eeven remotely compare to this: In 1980, CEOs at Fortune 500 firms were paid 42 times the average worker’s salary. By 2007, they were being paid on average 364 times as much.

And...during the most recent expansion from 2002 to 2006, the top 1 percent of taxpayers took three-fourths of all income growth

What is your point? Do you, as an American, have something against prosperity? Do you, as an American, have something against people earning as much as they can? I would bet if you were in one of those top brackets, you, as a good American, would be singing a whole different tune.

Well I guess if we can't shell the pirate towns, can't sink the pirate ships the alternative is to simply consider piracy the cost doing business in that stretch of the ocean. Pay the pirates thier tribute and I guess you just lie back and think of England.

Hoosier Daddy wrote: Well I guess if we can't shell the pirate towns, can't sink the pirate ships the alternative is to simply consider piracy the cost doing business in that stretch of the ocean. Pay the pirates thier tribute and I guess you just lie back and think of England.

Worked well enough for the Sunni insurgents. Funny thing was, nobody called it appeasement.

Most Republicans completely despise a President from the Democratic Party from DAY ONE. There's no wait-and-see or "give him a chance to prove himself" for them. If you listen to some of the more under the radar right-wing radio shows, the hosts and callers are debating whether Obama is a Nazi, a commie, or the anti-Christ.....

Actually, he is probably closer to a Nazi than a communist in his philosophies, as shown by his actions since entering office. But not completely - there is some cross over here. But his takeover of the banks is closer to something that the Nazis or the Fascists would have done, as compared to the communists. Socialists all, but of different types.

In any case, he forfeited any chance at being given a "chance" by conservatives when he flushed close to a trillion dollars down the drain funding every imaginable liberal wet dream of the last twenty years as "stimulus" and "investment". This is money that my unborn grandchildren will be paying off. So, no, with his actions in office, in particular, the legislation he has backed and signed into law, he doesn't deserve a chance to prove himself. He already has.

I am less worried about the crooks, tax cheats, lobbyists, and liberal fanatics that he has brought into his Administration. I doubt that very many who voted for anyone else in the last election is the least bit surprised. Ditto for violating a record number of campaign promises within the first two months. Again, no surprise, except for the number of moderate and conservative voters who actually believed him.

But I am also bothered by (and have no obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt for) his Jimmy Carter II foreign policy.

Eliminating nukes sounds great, until you realize that the only other countries that would, or even could, join in are Great Britain and France. Russia can't afford to, with China eying Siberia (and with almost a billion more people). China can't because of Russia and India. India because of China and Pakistan. Pakistan because of India, and likely, Iran. Israel because of the entire Moslem world, etc.

Maybe this is in response to complaints that Ann has not been evenhanded enough recently, but rather is shilling for the conservatives. But I don't think so. I think that she hits both sides, and respect her and her blog for that. And, indeed, ditto for her dinging Rush here, when she has done the opposite in the past.

Certainly any plan that does not involve simply killing everyone involves somehow bringing the other side over to your side. If enemies are going to stop fighting they have to be *allowed* to stop fighting.

The punishment of Germany after WW1 should be a lesson, of sorts. No good comes of refusing to rehabilitate or convert the enemy into allies.

And there certainly were plenty of criticism of rehabilitating Sunni insurgents... even in these comments on this blog... and it seemed to usually be liberals looking for an opportunity to oppose Bush while gaining hawk creds.

Read Michael Totten's column today. He is talking about the time he spent in Sadr City, the heart of the opposition to the Iraqi govt, and how safe it is there and how they are starting to develop their own businesses and control their own area. Worked very well indeed.

As to the support of the Dems for Bush, what a crock. Selected not elected, Chimphitler, etc. Talking about he had a recession in only 2 months when nobody yet has shown the surplus that was supposedly there and Bush changed no spending from Clinton nor did he even have his cabinet in place to change the spending. Blaming him for not acting on the briefing in Aug when there was nothing to act on. A plane somewhere in the US will attack a city somewhere in the US and it will happen sometime in the first couple of weeks of Sept. Good. Based on that what precisely could he do that he would not have been blamed for taking away people's rights. They could not even put together the intel because of the wall that Jamie Gorelick put in place so that the intel agencies could not coordinate what they knew. Bush stays there with the kids on Sep 11 until his team is in place and so that the kids don't freak out and he is blamed for that. He visits New Orleans after the hurricane and is blamed for not being there earlier and yet Bambi has yet to show up for the areas of Kentucky that went weeks without support from his govt and we are supposed to think that is A-OK.

The sheer hypocrisy and attempted rewriting of history by the left at this time is unbelievable. Now they are even trying to rewrite it so that Ike is responsible for the decisions by JFK at the Bay of Pigs and Lord knows who is going to be blamed for Vietnam. Surely not Saint JFK although he allowed the assassination of Diem and the initial change from advisors to warriors then.

If Jeremy were stil here, he wouldsay it is un-American to defame or make light of an icon of the Democrat Party and an assasinated president. True Americans would never do such a thing, blah, bah, blah...

Sorry but I was there at the time having to deal with fallout of the decisions he and his gang of intellectuals made. He is no saint to me. A very good PR guy, someone I would probably like to have a beer with, someone whose economic platform at least made some sense but his military decisions were abominable and LBJ's were even worse. And they foisted Bill Moyers on us.

Hector is entirely right when he writes that the “Arabic” numerals were first Indian. The Arabs stole, borrowed them, whatever. I base this not off an internet source, but from a really cool book titled. “The Golden Ratio: The story of Phi, the World’s Most Astonishing Number.” It is by Mario Livio, a Ph.d. who is head of the Science Division at the Space Telescope Institute. On page 88, Livio writes “An Indian plate from 595 already contains writing (of a date) in Hindu numerals using decimal place-value notation, implying that such numerals had been in use for some time.” Livio also references a Hindu mathematician who used place-value notation and who *died in 550.* Since Mohammed was not born until 570, there is little likelihood that the Muslims invented them, nor, for that matter, *any* Arabs. Sorry, but Hector is right. Try again.

--------------Althouse's critique is good. Obama has been in office only 100 days, and it's not like Bush did anything about the pirates other than support the clans they come from against the Somali Islamists. And as we know, Bush left some rather large messes behind, of far higher priority than pirates, that we must deal with.

Jeremy,Making money is what AMerica is all about. The secret of America; what makes it great, is the absolute right to prosper. The right to make and or earn as much as you can or think you can. AMerica was founded on the principle of unlimited potential.

It is un-American to decry, belittle, or criticize those who have found the path to prosperity in a legal manner. Maybe you are just jealous?

Peter - "Jeremy, Making money is what AMerica is all about. The secret of America; what makes it great, is the absolute right to prosper."

No shit?

But what does THAT have to do with Bush's sweetheart deal with the Rangers?

You should really take the time to see how much money G.W. made and what he had to do to make it.

G.W. was brought in at a ridiculous investment risk amount of $500,000 for one reason: to secure the taxpayer support and money for new park (hids dad's name, his name, etc.). They got it, and G.W. walked away with 30 times what he invested over the incredible period of...5 years.

YOU think this is some kind of..."right to prosper"...versus a chosen one reaping the rewards... that you and I would ever encounter?

Really?

Do YOU believe that???

And do you think this represents an example of G.W.'s ability to run a company?

Whose book? I mean lots of people publsih books that are dishonest. Some are autobiographies; Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama come to mind. Of course it is not illegal to publish lies and half truths as long as they do not hurt anyone and you get to make a buck doing it. Free expression and free enterprise are a great American traditions.

Peter, my beef with CEO Salaries is that the CEOs are not building long-term worth in the companies they are running (IMO) -- so why are they getting such hefty paychecks? They do everything they can to run up the stock price in the short term, and then jump ship with a golden parachute. Do they earn their money? Well, how are companies doing now compared to 10 or 15 years ago?

You have given a practical, reasonable expanation against CEO high salaries versus performance; instead of a socialist class warfare clap trap diatribe of they make way more than the struggling worker.

But, until private enterprise gets its act together and starts rewarding performance versus failure, there is no answer. The government should have no say and butt out. If businesses ran like the government they would all be bankrupt.

There is enough stockholder bad sentiment to force change and that is the way it should be. I believe that major corporations are going to start looking real deep and make changes on their own. Time will tell.

Jeremy,I know you are a man of limited intelligence, so I will ask this in a plain and simple manner, so even a dullard and simpleton like you can understand:

What fucking book about Bush are you talking about? Who wrote the fucking book? Was it a historinan, an agenda author with an ax to grind, a so called journalist? Or did you just take the typical lazy way out and go to wikidikipiki?

Easy questions that any normal American with a real education can answer.

HD,Did you know that it is un-American and un-patriotic to criticize Barak Obama? According to Jeremy no true American would or has the right to Criticize Obama. Aks him, he will tell you. He may even recomend a book, if he can remember the title.

Hoosier, I hope that the gains made by the surge hold. And I don't have a problem with the tactic of paying off the Sunni warlords. But it doesn't take a great leap to frame the payments as an appeasement program -- i.e. paying the people we were fighting to stop fighting us. Despite their grip on the media, liberals aren't very good at framing issues like this.

Peter Bella, iirc, the Texas Rangers' stadium development plan relied on the city using eminent domain to seize private property -- in excess of what the Rangers needed -- which the Rangers later sold for more than the original landowners were paid. Not exactly illegal, but exactly the sort of thing that everyone was screaming about re. Kelo.

There are all kinds of MBA's who don't know squat about running a business.

There are all kinds of lawyers who don't know squat about the law; Joe Biden, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy just to name a few; dead, living, and, in Teddy’s case, hopefully soon dead.

Peter Hoh,I am no fan of eminent domain for strictly private profit. But the argument here- by Jeremy- was how GW made his money. Did he or did he not make his money legally? Did he or did he not actually do something in return for the comepensation.

Look at Rham Emanuel, for example. He made sixteen million dollars on Wall Street for doing nothing but showing up for work everyday. Yet, Jeremy does not rage against the political plum and favor Bill CLinton got for his favorite ballet dancer.

The whole point is that according to Jeremy, there are good political plums- those recieved by Democrats and bad political plums, those recieved by Republicans.

I wonder what Jeremy would think if he lived in Chicago, the land of wealth generated by political patronage.

No, Germany was fought over and occupied. The bombing was only helpful as far as it strategically destroyed their military infrastructure. But civilian bombing, such as at Dresden and Hamburg, did nothing to help win the war.

And Japan was already sending out peace feelers before the atomic bomb, mainly because they were smart enough to realize they were going to lose one way or another.

Incidentally, we dropped more tonnage of bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of WWII, and that also did not win the war.

Eli Blake... The peace feelers from the Japanese thru the Russians were proposals that if we stopped fighting they would too. That was an offer for a truce, not an offer to surrender. If we had accepted it, then another N. Korea situation would have been created.

Air power cannot win alone. But the infantry cannot survive for long without the air superiority that covers them and covers their naval re-supply shipping. What part of "combined arms" warfare is new to your analysis?

Oh yeah. GWB was governor of a state for a few years, IIRC. Texas is still there, I think.

I have been doing some reading recently about Chicago's problems. It sure seems like someone (think BHO) could have been very helpful in Chicago.

You see, they have this huge education and violence problem. Helping the people of Chicago and mastering some administrative and govenmental skills and providing an example of something that works would have been a great way to estabish cred.

Funny how it didn't happen. It's that lanky casual coolness oozing out around the smile, reading speeches off TelePrompters. Spending money other people make. And asking other people to do what he can't.

Hoosier, I hope that the gains made by the surge hold. And I don't have a problem with the tactic of paying off the Sunni warlords. But it doesn't take a great leap to frame the payments as an appeasement program -- i.e. paying the people we were fighting to stop fighting us.

Actually they were being paid to stop fighting us and start fighting AQ. That's not appeasement, that's one of the older methods of warfare.

No, Germany was fought over and occupied. The bombing was only helpful as far as it strategically destroyed their military infrastructure.

Yes and my suggestion other than simply accepting piracy as the cost of doing business is to destroy thier infrastructure which allows them the capability to launch pirate attacks.

But civilian bombing, such as at Dresden and Hamburg, did nothing to help win the war.

Sure it did. Broke the will to fight, diverted resources otherwise needed at the front to relieve the bombed cities.

And Japan was already sending out peace feelers before the atomic bomb, mainly because they were smart enough to realize they were going to lose one way or another.

Yes because we were bombing them on a daily basis without much ability to respond.

Incidentally, we dropped more tonnage of bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of WWII, and that also did not win the war.

I know that seems to be the conventional wisdom but in fact, its inaccurate. Linebacker II brought the North back to the peace table in 1972. The war was lost when we decided to simply stop supporting the South.

HOW BUSH REALLY MADE HIS MILLIONS. CNN's Brooks Jackson cuts to the chase and arrives at some telling conclusions about how George made his Bush bucks:

"Bush started in the Texas oil business, after Yale University and Harvard Business School. Wealthy family friends and others invested millions with him, but with poor results. A 1985 disclosure shows Bush's track record:

Investors got back only 45 cents on the dollar, but few complained. Investors also got tax deductions averaging more than 80 cents on every dollar invested. Those early Bush ventures were mainly tax shelters." Everyone agrees that Dubya's baseball venture was his most successful business experience:

"Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth.

Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more. 'It was $135 million worth of sales tax money,' said attorney Glenn Sodd. 'The city donated a good bit of land to the project.

They got a sales tax exemption on all the items that were purchased for the stadium. We have a property tax in Texas and they were given as part of the deal a property tax exemption.' A total of at least $200 million, according to Sodd."

So there you have it, "Bush the businessman did prosper. But not by his bootstraps -- with help from wealthy friends and taxpayer subsidies."

good comment???? Did we all forget its now 3 days later and the pirates still hold the Capt of the ship and Obama still sits without comment. What will he do?? Is Rush right??? Will Somali pirates be the first in 200 years to hold American Sailors. The last time... Remember "The shores of Tripoli...."

The Captain has two little kids at home and a family who doesn't know when they will see their father and Obama's first words out when asked about the pirates by the press: "Guys, were talking about housing." Is he out of his mind? Surly the VP Joe Biden knows whats going on. "Uh uh uh uh, talk to Joe Smith, some guy at the Whitehouse." Your Secretary of State was asked, and all she did was Cackle an babble something about Morocco. This is an impotent administration. The least they could have done was acknowledge the guy and his family. No no no, "were talking about housing." he says HE wants to talk about housing. A perfect example of inexperience. If they can't even handle these guys with one tooth hanging out of their head. What are they going to do when there is another attack here at home. Ohh, I get it, Obama doesn't want to offend the pirates. he is going to reason with them. This guy is so out of touch with the people. Eric Holder called us a nation of cowards. I say, we are being lead by an administration of cowards.

Barack: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You wine and you curse my staff. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: the pirates death, while tragic, saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that hill. You need me on that hill.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!